Occupy Wall Street

From an intellectual view, Occupy Wall Street (OWS) has been complacent. They've communicated no demands, articulated no coherent political platform, and have provided no tangible code of conduct. Behaviorally, Occupy Wall Street has raised a few eyebrows.

Already there have been three allegations of rape - one which led to an arrest - illegal drug distribution, violent clashes with law enforcement, pimping of teenage prostitutes, public masturbation, and one incident of indecent exposure to a minor. To sympathizers, isolated incidents of disorder cannot diminish the movement's meaningful message about economic equality. To conservatives, however, this behavior is part and parcel to an ideology that glorifies civil disobedience and attempts to provoke unrest.

Tea Parties and Occupy Wall Street

Public contempt toward Wall Street is not limited to OWS protesters. A short time ago, Tea Parties emerged from the public's frustration over bank bailouts. Their rise to prominence reshaped American politics and reinvigorated a new brand of fiscal conservatism.

Both movements oppose "bailout ideology," but each aims their barrels at different culprits. Tea Parties blame big government for spending hundreds of billions of their taxpayer money on banks deemed "too big to fail." Occupy Wall Street blames greedy banks for taking the money while the public suffers. For Tea Parties, it's about the growth of government and uncontrolled spending. For OWS, it's about the growth of Wall Street and economic inequality.

Occupy Milwaukee

Last weekend, Occupy Milwaukee marched and banged their drums in an effort to pit the wealthiest 1% against everyone else. Chance Zombor, one of the chief spokespersons of Occupy Milwaukee, is an adept activist for the left. He was also one of the nineteen protesters arrested at Senator Ron Johnson's office earlier this month for trespassing.

He told the media that he wanted Senator Johnson to explain to him why he voted against President Obama's Jobs Bill. Johnson said that, if passed, the bill would have expanded government at the cost of increasing our national debt. True job growth, the good Senator argued, must come from the private sector.

But that's the rub. Zombor doesn't want private sector growth because he doesn't want a private sector at all. Zombor is a member of the Freedom Socialist Organization and Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). And not surprisingly, he describes himself as a Marxist-Leninist. What does this all mean?

Marxism–Leninism is a type of communist ideology that promotes a single-party rule by dictatorship. It initiates a "command economy" where the prices of goods and services are fixed by government. Under this regime, government confiscates private property and redistributes wealth by fiat. In the end, big brother would own and control most private sector businesses; so when they call their movement Occupy Wall Street, they mean it literally.

Marxism-Leninism would also purge society of anything considered upper-class, free market, or religious. Wish to debate it? That's not possible either. There can be no opposition to Communist-Lenninist rule and no room for other political parties. Divergent opinions must come from vetted politicians only within the same communist party. Does this sound like a view representative of the 99% of America?

Conclusion

Most Americans want political pluralism, religious liberty, and a free market. We don't want government telling us how much we can make, when we must buy, and what we can own. Most Americans - although not always happy with the richest 1% - understand they create jobs. Their accomplishments also provide a blueprint of hope for those who desire to go from rags to riches.

This transcendent ideal of the American Dream is why immigrants come far and wide risking life and limb to enter the United States. Even with its ups and downs, our free market economy is the best in the world and favored over economies run by government. As a spokesperson/leader of Occupy Milwaukee, Zombor's ambition is to transform our democratic government into a communistic dictatorship. I say no thanks to Occupy Milwaukee; we can do without that type of reform.

And 99% of OWS is not Marxist. Do you have any idea how irrelevant and worthless a debate would become if we began classifying an entire movement by the actions of one person? Do you know how many examples there are of TEA Party "Patriots" acting unlawfully? Would you like me to classify the entire organization by the actions of those individuals?

No, I suppose 99% of OWS are not Marxist. But most of them are. A poll conducted by the Wall Street Journal showed that the majority of OWS protesters oppose capitalism and support wealth redistribution. The majority of them believe that it's a moral obligation for government to provide free health care, free college tuition, and a stable retirement plan for all Americans.

I'm trying to find this poll you refer to, maybe you could help me out. The only one I am finding says that the majority of OWS demonstrators support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans. I don't consider that notion, which a majority of Americans DO support, to be socialist or necessarily in opposition to capitalism, as you put it.

Yeah... that's the one I found. I don't think the following explanation of what those numbers mean:

"What binds a large majority of the protesters together—regardless of age, socioeconomic status or education—is a deep commitment to left-wing policies: opposition to free-market capitalism and support for radical redistribution of wealth, intense regulation of the private sector, and protectionist policies to keep American jobs from going overseas."

Those are policies that the vast majority of Americans believe in. So if you are asserting that a belief in those policies equates to a belief in socialism, then you are insinuating that the vast majority of Americans are socialists.

Most Americans believe in raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans. That does not mean that they "oppose capitalism" nor does it mean they are socialists.

The argument that because a majority of OWS demonstrators support raising taxes on the wealthy equates to a support for socialism and an opposition to capitalism. Based solely on the results of that poll, you said "most of them are" Marxist.

In turn, you are essentially trying to argue that most Americans do not support the OWS people, because they do not support socialism. But, the only criteria you give for their support of socialism (except for Mr. Zombor's Facebook page)is that they support raising taxes on wealth individuals, something that most Americans support.

Chris, that's a straw man. The WSJ poll analyzed more than just higher tax rates for the wealthy. It showed that the majority of OWS protesters believed that government should provide free health care, free college education, and stable retirement. Most Americans do not believe that government should take on these additional responsibilities.

The article also said that the majority of OWS protesters opposed capitalism. Add this to the vast expansion of government that the majority of them want, it's reasonable to presume that a majority of them want a classless society.

Furthermore, the Communist Party USA, the Socialist Party USA, the Marxist Student Union, and the Freedom Road Socialist Organization have all put their public support behind the new movement.